Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Union of India against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had allowed writ petitions filed by two employees (respondents) seeking stepping up of pay under FR 22. The respondents were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks in 1973 and later promoted to Upper Division Clerk in 1976. They were promoted to officiate as Inspectors in 1981. Meanwhile, two other individuals, C.K. Satish and B.S. Srikanth, were directly recruited as Inspectors in 1981 and 1982, respectively. The Union of India introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in 1999 to provide financial upgradation to employees to remove stagnation. Under this scheme, C.K. Satish and B.S. Srikanth were granted upgradation, which resulted in them drawing higher pay than the respondents, who had been promoted earlier. The respondents made representations to the department for stepping up their pay to remove the anomaly, but their requests were rejected. They then filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which were dismissed in 2016. Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court, which allowed the petitions, directing the stepping up of pay. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of FR 22, which allows stepping up of pay when a junior promoted later draws higher pay than a senior promoted earlier. The Court noted that the juniors in this case were not promoted but were granted financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, which is a separate scheme aimed at removing stagnation and is not equivalent to regular promotion. The Court held that the anomaly in pay arose due to the operation of the ACP Scheme, not due to any irregularity in promotions. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to stepping up of pay under FR 22. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the appeals of the Union of India.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Anomaly - Stepping Up of Pay - FR 22 - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - The respondents, promoted earlier as Inspectors, sought stepping up of pay under FR 22 when their juniors, directly recruited later, drew higher pay due to ACP upgradation. The Supreme Court held that stepping up is not permissible when the anomaly arises from a different mode of advancement (ACP upgradation) and not from regular promotion, as the juniors were not promoted but granted financial upgradation under a separate scheme. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Assured Career Progression Scheme - Nature of Upgradation - The ACP Scheme provides financial upgradation to remove stagnation and is not equivalent to regular promotion. Therefore, a junior who receives ACP upgradation cannot be compared with a senior who was regularly promoted for the purpose of stepping up of pay under FR 22. (Paras 5-10) C) Service Law - FR 22 - Conditions for Stepping Up - FR 22 allows stepping up of pay only when a junior, who is promoted later, draws higher pay than a senior promoted earlier. It does not apply when the junior's higher pay is due to a different scheme like ACP, which is not a promotion. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, who were promoted earlier, are entitled to stepping up of pay under FR 22 when their juniors, who were directly recruited later, drew higher pay due to upgradation under the ACP Scheme.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions. The respondents are not entitled to stepping up of pay under FR 22.
Law Points
- Stepping up of pay
- FR 22
- Assured Career Progression Scheme
- Pay anomaly
- Junior drawing higher pay
- Promotion versus upgradation
